5 ms·

I upvoted this comment, since it's important to retain a skeptical perspective, anywhere. Reading psychology is very liberating as it can be an immense help in

I upvoted this comment, since it's important to retain a skeptical perspective, anywhere. Reading psychology is very liberating as it can be an immense help in understanding your personal experiences, but it can also become a vessel for projecting your preconceptions on those around you. Labeling others with mental disorders is also a way to dehumanize them and certainly not a healthy way to engage with the world. In the end, psychological labels are just shortcuts that help pattern the world in the absence of real understanding.

hitekker 5y ago
I agree. On the note of shortcuts, I see one in how we label any obligation outside of debt as “abuse”. That it’s inherently evil for someone else to expect something in return after doing something for them. A lot of people on the internet use that moral confusion to whitewash their ingratitude. Framing their obligator as morally reprehensible or psychologically unfit, by recalling other peoples sob stories, in order to reduce their own personal recompense. It’s like leveraging the legitimate tragedy of a few for the convenience of the many. And I’m saying this as someone who sponged off my parents for years and didn’t pay them a dime on rent.
- germinalphrase 5y ago
  A small counter, a child neither consents to being born nor being raised by their parents. Their captivity obliges the parent to invest and sacrifice.
  - hitekker 5y ago
    Yes, the child can get everything they want from the parent. The parent must sacrifice it all. Then, when they child has no need for the parent, they can find some excuse to call abuse "you birthed me, how dare you" and get rid of their parent forever. It's a convenient view for a convenient life. I should know; I've been there, done that, and I grew out of it (I think). Something about my future children being as ungrateful as I was really rankles me.
    - germinalphrase 5y ago
      That’s an uncharitable version of what I said, but sure. My own parents were not abusive, and I wish distance didn’t make it so difficult for them to be a larger part of my family’s life. They’re flawed and have their poverty/alcoholism/death baggage - but I feel really fortunate to have had them as parents. On the other hand, I have other people in my life whose parents were abusive (including being legally defined as such). Depending on the specific dynamic, most are trying to sort out how to ‘shrink’ the relationship in a way that maintains bonds and contact but with boundaries to soften the negative parts of the relationship. For others, the relationship is actively unsafe, and they’re minimizing contact. There’s clearly some hard stuff behind your version, but the answer isn’t to swing full tilt the other way. It’s all messy and fraught - but adult children do have agency over their lives and the shape of the relationship with their parents.

hitekker 5y ago

I agree. On the note of shortcuts, I see one in how we label any obligation outside of debt as “abuse”. That it’s inherently evil for someone else to expect something in return after doing something for them. A lot of people on the internet use that moral confusion to whitewash their ingratitude. Framing their obligator as morally reprehensible or psychologically unfit, by recalling other peoples sob stories, in order to reduce their own personal recompense. It’s like leveraging the legitimate tragedy of a few for the convenience of the many. And I’m saying this as someone who sponged off my parents for years and didn’t pay them a dime on rent.

germinalphrase 5y ago
A small counter, a child neither consents to being born nor being raised by their parents. Their captivity obliges the parent to invest and sacrifice.
- hitekker 5y ago
  Yes, the child can get everything they want from the parent. The parent must sacrifice it all. Then, when they child has no need for the parent, they can find some excuse to call abuse "you birthed me, how dare you" and get rid of their parent forever. It's a convenient view for a convenient life. I should know; I've been there, done that, and I grew out of it (I think). Something about my future children being as ungrateful as I was really rankles me.
  - germinalphrase 5y ago
    That’s an uncharitable version of what I said, but sure. My own parents were not abusive, and I wish distance didn’t make it so difficult for them to be a larger part of my family’s life. They’re flawed and have their poverty/alcoholism/death baggage - but I feel really fortunate to have had them as parents. On the other hand, I have other people in my life whose parents were abusive (including being legally defined as such). Depending on the specific dynamic, most are trying to sort out how to ‘shrink’ the relationship in a way that maintains bonds and contact but with boundaries to soften the negative parts of the relationship. For others, the relationship is actively unsafe, and they’re minimizing contact. There’s clearly some hard stuff behind your version, but the answer isn’t to swing full tilt the other way. It’s all messy and fraught - but adult children do have agency over their lives and the shape of the relationship with their parents.